Author Topic: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe  (Read 468 times)

Offline Gabriel

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« on: October 10, 2017, 08:36:41 am »
I have been studying many religions and Buddhism for almost all my life. There is an idea in Buddhism (not sure which sect) which states that what we experience with our senses is not real, objects do not exists and we create our world (this and next) with our mind.

I simply do not understand this, i don't because it doesn't make sense (atleast i can't make sense of it) Because world (and universe) is persistent. It has rules, what somebody else in this world does stays in it aslong as it is in accordance with the physical laws of the universe.

You move an object (or someone else does) and that object stays in that exact way aslong as something or someone doesn't change it again. That means that object also exists, not in our mind only, it cannot be, because what someone else does, effect the objects in the world too, not only your actions but others' too. So that means we are co-existing in a real physical plane. What we "feel" about this world might not be real, i get that, that our attachments and feelings causes us suffering but that doesn't mean those objects doesn't exist.

So i am asking if i got the idea right or not? Or if someone going to claim those objects do not exists, then how they just... don't?

I would like to discuss and learn more about this matter, and help is appreciated  :hug:

Offline Ron-the-Elder

  • Member
  • Posts: 4485
  • May all beings live rightly and harmoniously.
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2017, 03:50:40 pm »
Hi, Gabriel.

Unfortunately, from the perspective of modern scientific understanding this teaching does not make any sense.  Buddha did not teach this as quoted in any of his suttas.  What he did teach is found in The Four Noble Truths, and in suttas in which he describes the underlying principles which support this profound teaching, namely:  Impermanence, Emptiness, Dependent Arising, and The Law of Kamma. 

Buddha specifically avoided such  teachings because they do not lead to an end to suffering.  He states this specifically in The Simsapa Sutta
 resource for further study:  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html

Other resources along the same line:  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?cx=015061908441090246348%3Adj4lxnh4dda&cof=FORID%3A9%3BNB%3A1&ie=UTF-8&q=Simsapa+Sutta&sa=Search&siteurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2F
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2017, 05:13:16 pm »
...we create our world (this and next) with our mind.

This is the belief the self is god. Its not Buddhism.  :namaste:

Quote
there is Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2017, 05:42:09 pm »
...we create our world (this and next) with our mind... I simply do not understand this, i don't because it doesn't make sense (atleast i can't make sense of it) Because world (and universe) is persistent. It has rules, what somebody else in this world does stays in it aslong as it is in accordance with the physical laws of the universe...


Also, when the word "world" ("loka") is used in the Buddhist scriptures, it does not necessarily refer to the physical world but the psychological world of subjectivity, emotions & egoism.  :namaste:

Quote
Greed is a quality of the world that, when arising, arises for harm, stress, & discomfort. Aversion... Delusion is a quality of the world that, when arising, arises for harm, stress, & discomfort.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.023.than.html


Quote
Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html


Quote
Venerable sir, what is that course of actions to realise the world of only pleasant feelings?

Here, Udāyi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit abides in the first jhana (meditative absorption): Overcoming thoughts and thought processs and the mind in one point internally appeased, without thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with equanimuity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too, abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in pleasantness with equanimity. Udāyi, this is the course of actions, for realising the world of only pleasant feelings. `

http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/079-culasakuludayi-e1.html


Quote
And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes (self-identity) birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then (self-identity) aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html



Offline IdleChater

  • Member
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2017, 07:19:57 pm »
I have been studying many religions and Buddhism for almost all my life. There is an idea in Buddhism (not sure which sect) which states that what we experience with our senses is not real, objects do not exists and we create our world (this and next) with our mind.

I simply do not understand this, i don't because it doesn't make sense (atleast i can't make sense of it) Because world (and universe) is persistent. It has rules, what somebody else in this world does stays in it aslong as it is in accordance with the physical laws of the universe.

You move an object (or someone else does) and that object stays in that exact way aslong as something or someone doesn't change it again. That means that object also exists, not in our mind only, it cannot be, because what someone else does, effect the objects in the world too, not only your actions but others' too. So that means we are co-existing in a real physical plane. What we "feel" about this world might not be real, i get that, that our attachments and feelings causes us suffering but that doesn't mean those objects doesn't exist.

So i am asking if i got the idea right or not? Or if someone going to claim those objects do not exists, then how they just... don't?

I would like to discuss and learn more about this matter, and help is appreciated  :hug:

Well, Gabe, if the last two guys haven't sent you screaming into the night, I'd like to offer a bit of contrast.  You'll find that Mahayana Buddhism does teach that what we experience of the world around us is, in a manner of speaking, not found to exist.  Rather these things are mere appearance and subject to constant change.  Because of this, they can't be thought of truly exiting.  That's not to say there's nothing out there.  That's nihilism - an extreme the Buddha taught against.  What it does say is that what we experience - what appears to us - does not.

You can even apply some science to that if you want.

The other two guys will probably beat their chests about how the Mahayana isn'y really Buddhism and it's teachings are all wrong.  They're self-styled Theravadins, and that means they tend to be a little narrow-minded and conservative about some things.  They didn't give you wrong inormation.  They just didn't give you all of it.

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2123
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2017, 11:53:34 pm »
... but that doesn't mean those objects doesn't exist.


I would like to discuss and learn more about this matter, and help is appreciated  :hug:

If help exists what then may discussion effect beyond that? And if help does not exist discussion is useless from the outset.  :fu:

Offline Gabriel

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2017, 05:38:38 am »
Haha, i guess i am the only one interested in this "matter" seriously then?

Kabbalah gives almost perfect explanation regarding the nature of matter. But then again, other concepts in it is very hard to understand. Buddhism is the opposite, it is quite easy to understand things but have no easy explanation regarding the nature of matter. Or it has but i don't know about it so i would like to know :)

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2017, 12:30:36 pm »
Haha, i guess i am the only one interested in this "matter" seriously then?
What matter?

Kabbalah gives almost perfect explanation regarding the nature of matter. But then again, other concepts in it is very hard to understand. Buddhism is the opposite, it is quite easy to understand things but have no easy explanation regarding the nature of matter. Or it has but i don't know about it so i would like to know
Buddhism is about finding peace, which includes harmlessness or goodness. Kabbalah is a worldliness & excuse to justify evil.








Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2017, 12:41:52 pm »
I have been studying many religions and Buddhism for almost all my life.
Obviously, your study of Buddhism has been something extremely superficial & intellectual.

Quote
There is an idea in Buddhism (not sure which sect) which states that what we experience with our senses is not real, objects do not exists and we create our world (this and next) with our mind.
The consciousness mind reflects or knows what Buddhism calls "external sense objects", namely, sights, sounds, smells, tastes & touches. The mind does not "create" these sense objects.

Quote
I simply do not understand this, i don't because it doesn't make sense (at least i can't make sense of it)
The idea presented is not Buddhist. That is why it does not make sense.

Quote
Because world (and universe) is persistent. It has rules, what somebody else in this world does stays in it aslong as it is in accordance with the physical laws of the universe.
Yes. The physical universe functions & exists in  accordance with the physical laws of the universe. So what?

Quote
You move an object (or someone else does) and that object stays in that exact way aslong as something or someone doesn't change it again. That means that object also exists, not in our mind only, it cannot be, because what someone else does, effect the objects in the world too, not only your actions but others' too. So that means we are co-existing in a real physical plane. What we "feel" about this world might not be real, i get that, that our attachments and feelings causes us suffering but that doesn't mean those objects doesn't exist.
Buddhism does not teach external objects do not exist. Buddha states talk or discussion about "whether things exist or not" is "animal talk" (MN 122).

Quote
So i am asking if i got the idea right or not? Or if someone going to claim those objects do not exists, then how they just... don't?
The idea is not Buddhist but an idea of people mentally lost.

Quote
I would like to discuss and learn more about this matter, and help is appreciated 
There is nothing to learn or discuss because this topic is "animal talk" in Buddhism.

Buddhism teaches suffering exists; a path to end suffering also exists; and the end of suffering (Nirvana) exists for those who really need to ending suffering.

Kind regards  :om:

Offline IdleChater

  • Member
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2017, 03:00:48 pm »
Haha, i guess i am the only one interested in this "matter" seriously then?

Kabbalah gives almost perfect explanation regarding the nature of matter. But then again, other concepts in it is very hard to understand. Buddhism is the opposite, it is quite easy to understand things but have no easy explanation regarding the nature of matter. Or it has but i don't know about it so i would like to know :)

First of all, let me apologize for the boorish pontifications offered by our friend. 

I would offer Clover Maxims, 1 & 2 for your consideration:
Quote
1.) Never take what is written to, or about you in a web forum personally.

2.).  If something written to, or about you is meant to be taken personally, engage Maxim 1.

Anyway.....

You're likely to met with frutrations on your question, because, as you can see, there are those who don't take your questions seriously  and rather than leave it at that, they will denegrate it.

But about your question.  Buddhism isn't concerned with the "nature of matter" except to say that it has no inherent nature.  Buddhism is concerned with suffering and it's cessation.  It doesn't try to unlock the secrets of the universe.  Buddhism's interest in existential questions is in the context of inherent existence and how clinging to the illusion of it causes suffering.

So, in a Buddhist forum such as this one, there's really not much to talk about in regards to your question about the nature of matter, because quite honestly, Buddhism doesn't really care.

That's not to say other questions will be met with similar apathy, so if there are other questions, fire away.

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2123
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2017, 10:26:41 pm »
Haha, i guess i am the only one interested in this "matter" seriously then?

Kabbalah gives almost perfect explanation regarding the nature of matter. But then again, other concepts in it is very hard to understand. Buddhism is the opposite, it is quite easy to understand things but have no easy explanation regarding the nature of matter. Or it has but i don't know about it so i would like to know :)


In a nutshell: your perceptions and thoughts are just perceptions and thoughts. It is useless to wonder about the qualities of what you perceive as alleged objects and objects of thought because these are just perceptions and thoughts. And this applies to everything you can perceive and think about, [your]self and other phenomena. That is all buddhism is about.

Quote
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

Online Anemephistus

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2017, 04:22:28 am »
Quote
objects do not exists and we create our world (this and next) with our mind.


Our perception of the object is the subject, not the object. Things, thoughts, beings, all inter-are. We incorrectly perceive something and we add a nature to it that without skillful insight is inherently false and that addition is more a reflection of us than a trait of the object. But the object is in no way "exists" based on our perception, it exits either way, perceivable on the one hand as it is, on the other hand as we perceive it.

We recently discussed the state of Nirvana in another thread and weather or not it is a state of mind. http://www.freesangha.com/forums/general-buddhism-discussion/is-nirvana-just-a-different-state-of-mind/msg90515/?topicseen#new

Since realizing Nirvana is a central goal you should check the topic out in regards to the creation of the next world with the mind. I believe I took one of the answers like a brick to the face and have spent some time and will spend more meditating on it maybe a long time relatively speaking.   

Academic understanding of Buddhism is not a bad thing, but I invite you to to test the more personal teachings of the Buddha and look into the four noble truths, the eight-fold path, and the ways in which he taught the cessation of suffering and disenchantment with passion. Understanding Matter and energy are wonderful things, and they have lead to medicine and helped humanity in many ways, they have also hurt us in others, but peace is always a worthy goal.  :twocents:


Offline VincentRJ

  • Member
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2017, 04:45:06 am »
I would suggest that the problem here is that our modern, scientific understanding of the nature of matter and energy in terms of atoms, molecules, photons, gravity, the electromagnetic spectrum, and so on, simply didn't exist during the times of the Buddha.

In ancient Greece and ancient India, the basic elements of matter were described in terms of 'Air, Earth, Fire, Water, and Aether (or Void).

Offline Spiny Norman

  • Member
  • Posts: 5087
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2017, 04:57:32 am »
You move an object (or someone else does) and that object stays in that exact way as long as something or someone doesn't change it again.

There is really no such thing as an unchanging object, and it is more accurate to talk about processes, rather than things - ultimately one huge process, aka the universe.  So at all scales ( sub-atomic, human and cosmic ) there is perpetual change and movement. 

Offline Spiny Norman

  • Member
  • Posts: 5087
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: About the Nature of the Objects in the Universe
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2017, 05:07:43 am »
I would suggest that the problem here is that our modern, scientific understanding of the nature of matter and energy in terms of atoms, molecules, photons, gravity, the electromagnetic spectrum, and so on, simply didn't exist during the times of the Buddha.
In ancient Greece and ancient India, the basic elements of matter were described in terms of 'Air, Earth, Fire, Water, and Aether (or Void).


Perhaps, although I don't think the ancient concept of elements is all that different from the more modern concept of atoms.  Also Buddhism has a fairly "modern" view of the elements, as for example in the Phena Sutta, where form is described as a glob of foam:

"Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 05:10:09 am by Spiny Norman »

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal